Summary
The District of Columbia Court of Appeals adopted the Board of Professional Responsibility’s recommendation that Mr. Green receive a 90-day suspension, with 30 days stayed, and one year of probation with conditions. Because the Board had not addressed whether the discipline should run concurrently with or consecutively to reciprocal discipline imposed for related Maryland conduct, the court remanded that issue to the Board.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the court should accept the Board of Professional Responsibility's uncontested recommendation of a ninety-day suspension, with thirty days stayed, and one year of probation with conditions.
- Whether the court should determine whether the discipline in this proceeding runs concurrently with or consecutively to the reciprocal discipline, or instead remand that issue to the Board.
Holdings
- When neither party takes exception to the Board of Professional Responsibility's report and recommendation, the court gives heightened deference to the Board's recommendation.
- When the Board's report does not address whether discipline should run concurrently with or consecutively to related reciprocal discipline, the court remands that issue to the Board for a recommendation.
Key quotations
“When neither party takes exception to the report and recommendation, we give heightened deference to the Board’s recommendation.” (at 778)
“We accordingly remand to the Board for a recommendation on the issue.” (at 779)
Factual background
The Board of Professional Responsibility determined that Green neglected his representation of a client in the District of Columbia. The Board recommended a ninety-day suspension, with thirty days stayed, and one year of probation with conditions. Green had also received reciprocal discipline in the District of Columbia based on an indefinite Maryland suspension arising from related conduct.
Procedural history
The Board of Professional Responsibility found that Green neglected his representation of a client and recommended discipline. Disciplinary Counsel initially excepted to the recommendation because it did not require a showing of fitness for reinstatement, but later withdrew that exception after the court imposed a fitness requirement in a separate reciprocal-discipline proceeding. Neither Green nor Disciplinary Counsel otherwise contested the Board's recommendation, and the court accepted the recommended suspension and probation while remanding the concurrency issue to the Board.
Remand instructions
The case was remanded to the Board of Professional Responsibility for a recommendation on whether the discipline imposed in this proceeding should run concurrently with or consecutively to the reciprocal discipline.